What percent of DMOZ listings are quite useless/innaccurate/never updated?

I don't want to insult any editor, but the DMOZ directory listing for the niche field I am interested in is absolutely abyssmal. Besides not ever being updated, most of the linked sites on there are not of high quality, and some are completely biased.

Since DMOZ is the most important directory on the internet and google values it so much, I am curious if this is just due to the fact there are so few editors and because my field is a niche area.

is absolutely abyssmal

Click to expand...

That's a pretty deep thing to say .

You might have misunderstood our objectives and how we operate here. ODP is a volunteer organisation building a directory as a hobby. Editors edit where they wish, when they wish and as much as they wish within the constraints of their permissions. We have no schedules or systems to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do. ODP is not primarily a free listing service for website owners and it does not attempt to process their listing suggestions within the time scales desired by them.

If no editor is interested in editing a category, it doesn't get edited. However, it has been suggested that our thousands of editors are some sort of representational sample of the surfing pupulation at large. If that's true, it follows that if no editor thinks a particular category is important, it probably isn't .

> I don't want to insult any editor
We are used to much worse

> but the DMOZ directory listing for the niche field I am interested in is absolutely abyssmal.
That normaly means noone is interested enough to look at the listings. Even when you are not an editor you can help to improve the quality.
See http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showforum=12 Please first read the threads marked important and than tell us what the problems are in the thread `Report Hijacks, Dead Links, Inappropriate ODP Content, and other issues here ONLY`

> Besides not ever being updated,
It must have been updated atleast once else that category could not exist.
> most of the linked sites on there are not of high quality
Quality. What is that and who is to judge. DMOZ is only interested in content not in the looks of a site.
> and some are completely biased.
Which is not a problem. People are allowed to express their own opinion. We do not judge such an opinion.

> Since DMOZ is the most important directory on the internet
Important? It has its use. We are to modest to call ourself important.
> and google values it so much,
O, do they. Not according to our information. Or maybe `so much´ is not what I think it means.

> I am curious if this is just due to the fact there are so few editors and
> because my field is a niche area.
A category is only updated if someone is interested in doing some work in that category. If noone is interested it may be years before anything seems to happen. But there are lot of things happening, just not in that category.

Well based on the fairly detailed application process I filled out (and am filling out again), I assumed that every editor volunteer is more than suitably qualified.

This subject is a medical condition that quite severely afflicts around one or two percent of people, but based on human nature, if you or your close ones don't suffer from it, the subject is pretty meaningless!

So meaningless is all in the eye of the beholder of course.

However, a two percent probability makes it significant.

Also, if anyone can provide this info:

-- What percent of editor applications are accepted?

-- How many editor applications do you get per day in the US English section?

I son't think that either of those two bits of information are publicly available. However, a couple of figures I can provide: (1) We accept somewhere around 60 new editors every week, and (2) on the applications I evaluate, I think I accept somewhere in the region of 1 in 10.

But (and it's a bit but) the second figure is rather misleading since it applies only to the areas I edit in and many people apply more than once. A lot of current editors took at least two applications before they were accepted, and some people keep applying with the same problems, and seem unable to follow the advice given in the rejection emails. Hence the percentage of applicants (as opposed to applications) that are eventually successful in my area is almost certainly quite a bit higher. I can't comment on other areas though, and it will probably depend a lot on the type of category, the type of people it attracts, and the reasons it attracts them.

Julius said:

-- What percent of editor applications are accepted?

Click to expand...

That is an unknown and meaningless statistical number.
For instance yesterday I accepted a new editor on his 3th application.
Statisicaly this would be a 33 acceptance percentage. Or is it 100%.

How many editor applications do you get per day in the US English section?

Click to expand...

The answer is both to few and to much.

The number of applicants, the number of rejections and the number of accepted has totaly no influence on the next application that will be reviewed. We don't have quota. Each and every application must show us that the person understands DMOZ, is honest and is applying for the good of the directory. Some mange to be accepted on their first application, some will never.

US English section

Click to expand...

We don't ask applicants to specify which version of English they speak.
The ODP is an international directory, with sites and editors from all over the world, so the English-language part of the directory is for listing any suitable site written in English, no matter where the subject is based.

(I mention this only because it is a common misconception, even among editors, unfortunately, that US-based sites are our primary interest. Not so.)

well if I can comment ...

pvgool said:

>

> Since DMOZ is the most important directory on the internet
>> Important? It has its use. We are to modest to call ourself important.

To be modest ( not only for a person for hole comunity ) is a virtue and probably thats one of the factors who put ODP/DMOZ on hes place all over the places from internet .. actually there are quite few other directoryes with editors and allmoust same structure like this , ofcourse some of them are payd .... things who make this comunity different are '' others ''.

> and google values it so much,
>> O, do they. Not according to our information. Or maybe `so much´ is not what I think it means.

well google practically copy/paste ODP its worthless to think anything ...
only thing what they do actually is to add their small pr bar in front of the listing , so .... I dont know what exactly this means and how important is your jobs there ( editors and other peoples from staff ) but i`m sure they consider it valuable , the thing which I didnt understand never if google penalize small sites for duplicate content how's come they dont give penalize for the google directory too ... since is copy/paste from your works !

Click to expand...

needless to say more than I said .

Julius said:

the DMOZ directory listing for the niche field I am interested in is absolutely abyssmal.

Click to expand...

I used to be a dmoz editor, but that was so long ago I remember the change of name from Gnuhoo to Newhoo. (I've also been an editor on two other well known directories, and a few smaller ones.) While at dmoz, I set up many sub-categories and proactively added hundreds of sites in various subject areas, including classical guitar, business search engines, rave flyers and political protest movements. I replied to all URL submissions for categories where i was the editor within 48 hours, either confirming a site's inclusion, or explaining what needed to be changed for the submission to be successful. My purpose was to help provide a web resource second to none in depth and relevance.

From time to time I return to dmoz to submit a site, and while there check out some of the categories I set up long ago. Sadly they have hardly changed over the years. Few new sites have been added and those that are still there are often no longer so relevant. Even more disappointing is that submissions seem to take ever longer to be dealt with (and in some categories appear not to be dealt with at all).

I read with a wry smile that dmoz welcomes "feedback", but look in vain for a link to a page where it can be given. My smile becomes even wryer when I look at the information on how to become an editor, which I've been tempted to do more than once to try and rescue the remnants of my work from so long ago.

When I stopped being a dmoz editor, I had an email from Rich Skentra (co-founder of Dmoz) thanking me for my achievments, expressing disappointment I was leaving, and hoping that one day I might return. (This was long before people started offering courses on how to become a dmoz editor in order to get one's own site to the top of a category listing whilst keeping out competing sites.) Ironically, the editorial requirements are now so stiff, they seem designed to keep out all except those with sufficient commercial incentive to expend on the required effort. (I suspect that many non-commercial ex-editors of dmoz, like myself, prefer to spend their energy updating Wikipedia pages.)

I last submitted a URL about six months ago, and as with my two previous submissions, both for straightforward respectable sites with original content, I am still waiting. It appears that nothing whatsoever can be done to find out the status of submissions: no follow-up can be requested, no complaint can be made, and no resubmission is allowed. Dmoz is the poorer for it. (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

This Julius, is perhaps the reason why the dmoz listing for the niche field you are interested in is "absolutely abyssmal". In a nutshell, dmoz increasingly exists for the benefit of its editors (and their commercial interests) rather than its users.

Weed said:

I used to be a dmoz editor, but that was so long ago I remember the change of name from Gnuhoo to Newhoo.

Click to expand...

Things have changed much since those good old times.
The number of websites on the Internet exploded.
The number of websites suggested to DMOZ exploded. We now probably receive more suggestions in a single day than the number of suggested websites in several months in those days. And most of these suggestions now aren't lisatble at all.

Sadly they have hardly changed over the years. Few new sites have been added and those that are still there are often no longer so relevant.

Click to expand...

Most probably none of the current editors is interested enough to take a deep look at those categories. You can always let us know about listings that should be changed or removed.

Even more disappointing is that submissions seem to take ever longer to be dealt with (and in some categories appear not to be dealt with at all).

Click to expand...

It all comes down to
- editors being interested in a subject to work in a category
- editors being interested in looking at the suggested sites, they can also find listable sites in other sources
- more suggestions than the number of editors can handle
- the large number of unlisatble sites being suggested

My smile becomes even wryer when I look at the information on how to become an editor, which I've been tempted to do more than once to try and rescue the remnants of my work from so long ago.

Click to expand...

You can only return on the account you had previously.

Ironically, the editorial requirements are now so stiff, they seem designed to keep out all except those with sufficient commercial incentive to expend on the required effort. (I suspect that many non-commercial ex-editors of dmoz, like myself, prefer to spend their energy updating Wikipedia pages.)

Click to expand...

Becoming an editor is very simple. Be honest and be complete on the application. Something a lot of people seem to be incapable of doing.
People who want to become a DMOZ editor for commercial purpose will be rejected or they will be removed when found out that they missuse their privileges for commercial purposes. Which does not mean that people working in a business can not be editor for a category about that business. They just should not mix their editor and personal/business interests.

I last submitted a URL about six months ago, and as with my two previous submissions, both for straightforward respectable sites with original content, I am still waiting. It appears that nothing whatsoever can be done to find out the status of submissions: no follow-up can be requested, no complaint can be made, and no resubmission is allowed.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that is intentional.

In a nutshell, dmoz increasingly exists for the benefit of its editors (and their commercial interests) rather than its users.

Click to expand...

There might have been editors that abused their position but they were and will always be removed when their abuse is discovered.
It is true that DMOZ does not exist for the people who suggest sites. But they are not our users.

Ironically, the editorial requirements are now so stiff

Click to expand...

That's really not true and I don't think they've substantially changed over the years. Our evaluation tools have though .

I decline applications from self promoting liars, those who aren't reasonably fluent in the language of the category and those who don't understand the scope of the category they're requesting - and those who were too busy to actually read the questions before answering them of course. That's plain common sense, not a rigid desire to keep people out.

In the old pre Google days, ODP was seen as a directory, plain and simple. Later, it was believed to be the golden key to high SE rankings. (Google nowadays claims that that isn't true). That in turn has lead to a dramatic increase in the number of chancers who want to become editors for the primary purpose of promoting their own websites - sometimes at the expense of others'. I'm sure you'll agree that detecting them and keeping them out is a good thing.

Wikipedia is a great resource but its open door policy sadly makes it vulnerable to vandalism, bias and self promotion. These are often, but not always, detected and reverted of course.

pvgool said:

It is true that DMOZ does not exist for the people who suggest sites. But they are not our users.

Click to expand...

For several years now I've thought of myself as a user who has suggested sites in order to improve the OPD. Though on reflection, it's rare that I meet people who have heard of dmoz, other than those interested in internet search facilities. In fact few people I talk to these days even know what a directory is.

So rather than 'people who suggest sites' not being your users, I suspect they are close to being your only users

I take your point about the continuing explosion in the size of the internet, an increase which unfortunately has not been proportionally reflected in the number of dmoz editors (an increase of approx 5% in the last 12 months). But what is harder to understand is how, with 80,000 editors, the size of the ODP has only increased by 25,000 sites since mid-February 2008.

In other words a dmoz editor on average adds approx 1 new site every 3 years. [withdrawn]

(OK i realise that some sites may also get deleted, but IMHO not that many.)

Now perhaps you see why people are complaining. It's not that their submissions are being rejected, but that they suspect their submissions are being deliberately ignored.

i realise that some sites may also get deleted, but IMHO not that many.

Click to expand...

You're welcome to your HO, but it's hundreds of thousands

We have far fewer than 80,000 editors. That's the number of folks who've volunteered their efforts over the last decade - including you .

that they suspect their submissions are being deliberately ignored.

Click to expand...

It's entirely possible that some site suggestions are deliberately ignored. As long as an editor is working towards the net growth and improvement of the directory and not editing abusively or self-interestedly, how they find the sites they list is not an issue -- the pool of suggested sites is one tool they can use but they are not required to use it.

ok - thanks for clearing up my confusion re numbers -- just to be clear, when dmoz states "4,607,363 sites - 82,293 editors - over 590,000 categories", unlike for editors, the number of sites and categories is the current number?

Yes.

Thanks for your patient replies. I now have a better understanding of the ODP's policy re submissions.

Possibly an example may help clarify the situation more.

Over the last 2-3 weeks I've been at work tidying up a regional area of some 550 sites. In that time most of the work has been identifying and creating sub-categories where the number of sites has allowed, replacing old urls with new ones (where the owner has moved to their own url), updating out dated descriptions, handling instances where the business has moved or changed, or the owners have retired and changed their sites accordingly, or have closed down. Other tasks are handling sites flagged with errors - either rereviewing and relisting them if they are 'back' or looking for replacements if they are lost. Oh and there are the unrevieweds to do as well.

It is only in the last day or so that the number of listed sites in the area has increased and the unreviewed tally dropped. However the main aim is to provide a well-structured set of categories reflecting the geographical area and it is more important to create and flesh out the missing locations and make sure that the listings in the well represented locations are sound.

So as I go about this task, the suggestion pool is useful, there are sites relevant to the area and, in the main, relatively little spam (or least easily spotted spam) . However to achieve my aims, I need to go out and find sites otherwise the area would appear to be populated entirely by holiday accommodation and web-services.

The end achievement is not that I will have listed suggested sites but that the net effect is a better quality set of categories. In the early days of the directory a push for size was seen as important, now the question is more of quality, and maintenance does take time. I could spend all my time editing, never add a suggested site and still make a valuable contribution to the directory.

regards